Michael J. Rosen

Michael J. Rosen is President of ML Innovations, Inc., a fundraising and marketing consulting firm serving nonprofit organizations and the companies that assist them. An AFP Certified Master Trainer and winner of the prestigious AFP/Skystone Prize for Research, Michael is the author of the bestselling book "Donor-Centered Planned Gift Marketing."

Blog Search

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Related Links:

Posts tagged ‘research’

Nonprofit organizations are making a big mistake. Many charities ask individuals to consider making a “Bequest Gift.” Of course, an even bigger mistake is not asking at all. However, there is a better way.

Russell James, JD, PhD, CFP, a leading philanthropy researcher based at Texas Tech University, reports that the latest research shows that asking people to consider “Gifts in your will” generates far more interest. When asking prospects to consider a “Bequest Gift,” 18 percent responded, “I might be/am definitely interested.” By contrast, when prospects were asked to consider “Gifts in your will,” 28 percent expressed interest!

James will offer additional research-based insights in a FREE webinar, Words that Work II: The Phrases that Encourage Planned Giving, hosted by MarketSmart on Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM EDT. Registration is required and space is limited so click here now.

During the webinar, you’ll get the following information:

How to describe bequest gifts and tax benefits in a way that will increase a person’s desire to learn more;

What elements of a charitable gift annuity advertisement make people want to get one;

What the latest data patterns say about trends in charitable estate planning;

The best “front door” phrase to get people to read about planned giving information;

Test results that showcase the responses to different charitable gift annuity advertising messages;

And much more of great interest and value!

In short, James’ webinar will provide you with powerful, practical insights that will help you enhance your planned giving results.

So, why is asking for a “Bequest Gift” less effective than asking for “Gifts in your will”?

Americans donated an estimated $358.38 billion in 2014, surpassing the peak last seen before the Great Recession, according to the 60th anniversary edition of Giving USA, released today. That overall total slightly exceeds the benchmark year of 2007, when giving hit an estimated inflation-adjusted total of $355.17 billion. However, Individual giving has yet to recover fully.

The 2014 philanthropy total increased by 5.4 percent, when inflation adjusted, over the revised estimate of $339.94 billion that Americans donated in 2013. Giving has grown for each of the previous five years. The growth in 2014 significantly outpaces the average growth rate of 3.4 percent (inflation adjusted) during the past five-year period.

All four sources of contributions that comprise total giving increased in 2014:

“The 60 year high for total giving is a great story about resilience and perseverance,” says W. Keith Curtis, Chairman of the Giving USA Foundation and President of The Curtis Group. “It’s also interesting to consider that growth was across the board, even though criteria used to make decisions about giving differ for each source.”

When combining the Individual and Bequest numbers, we see that individuals contributed 80 percent of all dollars given to charity in 2014. If we include family foundation giving, individual philanthropy accounted for 87 percent of all dollars given in 2014, according to Patrick Rooney, PhD, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Research at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. Large Individual gifts of $200 million or more accounted for a significant portion of the overall growth in Individual giving while the actual number of gifts over $1 million has decreased.

“We saw several very large gifts greater than $200 million — a few were greater than $500 million and one was nearly $2 billion — in 2014,” says Rooney. “The majority of these mega-gifts were given by relatively young tech entrepreneurs.”

Looking at the nine gift recipient categories, all but one saw an increase in giving:

We all have heard that it’s not just what you say, but how you say it that matters. Now, new research sheds some surprising light on the subject.

In the past, researchers have proven that body language is important. We’ve been told to stand-up straight. Don’t slouch while sitting. Don’t point. Shake hands firmly. Look people straight in the eyes, assuming it’s culturally appropriate given the context.

Most of us think that when we want to make a point, we should look the other person in the eye. Spouses, bosses, car salesmen, politicians, all use a direct gaze when they’re trying to convince an audience of many or one that their position is the most valid. Now it turns out that they should probably cast their glance in a different direction.”

Adams continues:

In a new paper just published in the journal Psychological Science, Minson and Chen tested the proposition that eye contact can win over people who disagree with the speaker. In two different studies (conducted at the University of Freiburg where Chen was doing her post-doctoral work), their data show that people respond more favorably to opposing arguments when the speaker looks at an angle to the recipient or focuses his eyes on his counterpart’s mouth instead of his eyes.”

Based on the Forbes article and even the study abstract itself, one might believe that development professionals should minimize eye contact with prospective donors when meeting face-to-face, at least during the ask. After all, the researchers state:

These findings suggest that efforts at increasing eye contact may be counterproductive across a variety of persuasion contexts.”

In other words, if you’re trying to persuade someone to make a donation, increasing eye contact can actually hurt your effort, the research suggests.

The study is certainly provocative given that it runs counter to conventional wisdom and other studies on the subject of eye contact. However, should we take the study seriously? When in situations where we are trying to persuade someone, should we do as Adams suggests and just let our “eyes wander”?

Well, before you automatically accept the research findings, consider these issues:

● The research samples were small involving just 20 students in the first study and 42 in the second.

● The research sample was culturally biased as it only involved college students.

● The research sample was age biased as it only involved college-age students.

● The research only involved the actions of the message recipients, not the messenger. In other words, the researchers considered where the message recipients were looking and not where the messenger was looking.

● The researchers instructed the study participants on where they could look, thereby possibly introducing bias.

● The research involved test subjects “interacting” with videotaped presenters rather than live speakers.

For me to break from conventional wisdom normally requires compelling evidence. While the Minson and Chen research is interesting and provocative, I find it sufficiently problematic to warrant further research.

An exciting new study from researchers at Texas Tech University used brain scans to garner fresh insight into charitable giving behavior. Specifically, the study looked at what motivates individuals to make a charitable bequest commitment as well as what de-motivates them. This is the first time that Magnetic Resonance Imaging has been used to examine charitable bequest decision making.

This blog post marks the first time that the breakthrough findings of the Texas Tech study have been released to the nonprofit development community. I am honored that Russell N. James, III, JD, PhD, CFP furnished me with a preview copy of his draft report, “Charitable Estate Planning as Visualized Autobiography: An fMRI Study of Its Neural Correlates.” I thank James for providing me with the draft report and for allowing me to share it with you. I also want to recognize Michael W. O’Boyle, Ph.D. who co-authored the report.

While James has written a scientific paper with a suitably technical title, don’t be intimidated. My article will look at the data from a fundraiser’s perspective. If you want more detail or want to explore the science behind the findings, you can download the full report.

The three key findings of the report are:

Bequest giving and current giving stimulate different parts of the brain. This suggests that different motivators and de-motivators are at work. While the report compares and contrasts the differences in brain activity where current versus bequest giving are concerned, I’ll limit myself here to a review of the findings related to bequest giving.

Making a charitable bequest decision involves the internal visualization system, specifically those parts of the brain engaged for recalling autobiographical events, including the recent death of a loved one.

Charitable bequest decision making engages parts of the brain associated with, what researchers call, “management of death salience.” In other words, and not surprisingly, charitable bequest decision making involves reminders of one’s mortality.

So, what do these findings mean for development professionals?

Fundraisers need to understand that charitable bequest decision making is about autobiographical connections, not numbers, such as taxes, or even the needs of the charity. James suggests, “Start conversations by working to trigger autobiographical memories associated with the charity, or the cause the charity represents. The goal is to lay-out for the donor how a bequest gift to the organization fits neatly into their autobiography.”

This is the Hanukkah and Christmas season. It’s a time of great spiritual meaning.

For Jews, it is a time to celebrate religious freedom and the survival of the Jewish people.

For Christians, it is a time to rejoice in the birth of Jesus Christ.

For retailers, this is economically a make or break season.

Now, there is stunning news concerning nonprofit/for-profit partnerships. Cause-related marketing is something that can significantly help both nonprofit organizations and their for-profit partners more than ever before.

According to a study from Cone Communications, a public relations and marketing agency specializing in cause branding and corporate responsibility, an overwhelming 94 percent of consumers are likely to switch brands, about equal in price and quality, to one that supports a social issue. This purchase behavior is at an all-time high since Cone first began measuring consumer purchase trends in 1993, says Craig Bida, Cone’s Executive Vice President of Cause Branding and Nonprofit Marketing.

“Over the years, consumers have been increasingly expecting companies to support social causes. Now, we’re seeing Americans demand companies address issues by speaking with their wallets,” said Bida.